Blog

  • David Rogers

    I should really be in bed, but tonight was one of those nights where something caught my attention. The internet then proceeded to suck me in while I searched on a topic.

    Tomorrow, I am planning to go to the Hill to see a Kerry v. Gingrich discussion. I am not going for the discussion as much the participants, but this is not my reason for staying up. Because I was going to be on the Hill, I decided to ask my uncle David if he would like to have lunch. Then tonight, I got on a little spree of Googling him.

    David is a veteran Hill reporter. I admittedly have read little of his work because I don’t peruse the Wall Street Journal much, but if I see a link to an article with his name, I always read it. David is a classic “Rogers.” Fairly reserved, very bright, and a hard worker. I rarely discuss politics with him because honestly I know far too little to have an intelligent conversation. I don’t think he really realizes this, but :shrug:.

    It is just interesting to do some Googling on him. For example, just this year I have found the following two articles.
    Source
    Majority Leader Boehner apparently made some digs at Hill Reporters in his speech at the Congressional Correspondent’s Dinner.

    Boehner took another dagger yesterday when he ran into The Wall Street Journal’s David Rogers in the Speaker’s lobby just off the House floor.

    Boehner, who ridiculed Rogers’s wardrobe in his speech Tuesday, told Rogers, “You don’t look any better a day later.”

    Rogers shot back, “You’re not any funnier.”

    A DC Blog seems to be a little obsessive over David’s Wardrobe

    Thank Heavens that FishbowlDC is recognizing just how totally hot local reporters really are, because The Hill Newspaper is out with its annual 50 Most Beautiful People list today and only two reporters made it on the list (sorry, David Rogers): Fox News reporter Megyn Kendall and Voice of America’s Peggy Chang.

    and hair.

    It is not all laughs, hair, and clothes for David. In February, he called a Senator for not doing his homework
    Source

    Reporter dresses down DeMint on knowledge of resolution

    In a move that raised eyebrows last week, David Rogers, a political reporter for The Wall Street Journal, publicly questioned Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) knowledge of a bipartisan Iraq war resolution introduced by some of his colleagues.

    The resolution, introduced by ranking Armed Services Committee member Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), and cosponsored by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), disagrees with President Bush’s troop surge but supports vigorous operations against al Qaeda in Anbar province.

    In a press briefing of GOP senators who disagreed with the resolution — they included DeMint, John Cornyn (R-Texas) and David Vitter (R-La.) — Rogers pointedly asked DeMint, “Did you read the resolution?”

    DeMint, who looked embarrassed, replied that he read the summary of the resolution. Other reporters began to snicker. But Rogers didn’t let up. In a classroom moment, he lectured DeMint on the contents of the resolution.

    And as it happens, there is no summary of the three-page resolution. What Rogers may not know is that DeMint was referring to an inner-office summary of all the competing resolutions that his aides had prepared for him.

    DeMint’s aides expressed to bystanders that they considered Rogers’s questioning a cheap shot but would not say anything on the record. “We decline to comment,” said DeMint’s spokesman, Wesley Denton.

    A Senate Republican aide who attended the press conference remarked, “It’s a reporter’s job to ask tough questions, but continuously interrupting a senator’s response is rude and inappropriate regardless of how long you’ve been covering Capitol Hill. His behavior definitely raised a lot of eyebrows among those who were there that morning.”

    Rogers, however, had little to say about his nervy behavior: “Mr. DeMint has not complained to me about my question,” the longtime Capitol Hill reporter said.

    David really should write a book when he retires. He would likely want to write on something regarding Vietnam (he is a Veteran and definitely appreciates Veteran legislators, i.e. McCain). I think the stories he could tell about Congress would be fascinating. There are few people with his knowledge about the inside workings of Congress. He may not want to because he is someone who doesn’t like the attention or and definitely doesn’t like the inside beltway baseball. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem like the type to do this.

    Before I go to bed, I have one good David story. When I was in High School, I came to DC for a Conference. They let us loose on the Hill for a few hours. I had prearranged to meet up with David. It was the summer after 9/11, so security was tighter. Instead of having me wait in line with all other visitors and staffers, David took me to a side door of the capital and got a security guard to let us in. He then took me up to where his desk was in a press room, slapped a press intern sticker on me, and off we went. He took me to right outside the House Chamber, the Senate Appropriations room, and he asked who I wanted to see. One of my choices was Gephardt, the minority leader at the time. David then took me to his office and asked if he was available. The staffer there checked, and she said it would be just a minute. David then whipped out of his pocket a scrap of cloth that he called a tie, did a Windsor knot, and just sort of chuckled that he had to look presentable. We then went in; Gephardt knew David, and then spoke to me for a bit about the Cardinals and SLU. It was an absolute thrill for me. (We later went to see Senator Bond, but David said that the Senator probably wouldn’t want to see him, and we parted then, which was slightly humourous).

    Over the past three plus years, I probably should have made more efforts to see David. He has never been unwelcoming to me, and I will probably regret not making more of an effort. Just hope he will be free for lunch tomorrow.

  • Direct Mail -> Internet

    Direct Mail of the 1970s, Internet of the 2000s?

  • Billikens.com Drama

    I guess it is a good thing that right now there is more drama in my life on a web site about the Saint Louis University Billikens than in real life. However, I must say that it is sad how much time I have spent in the last two weeks playing referee.

    Pretty much what has happened is that Billikens are not meeting expectations for this season. They are 15-10, which is not bad. However, they had an All Conference Junior come back for his senior season and two stellar guards entering their sophomore year. Everyone thought that this year was the year…Until Conference play started.

    SLU won every game they needed to in non-conference, and only lost to respectable opponents. But their first two conference games, they lost to two of the worst teams in the A-10. Effectively killing their at large hopes.

    There were some posters who already had questions about the coach, and boy did they come out in full force after those two losses. Some of the most optimistic posters got upset at the negative tone of the board. Throw in a couple of trolls who have been around for a year or so, and things went nuts.

    During all of this, if anything went wrong in SLU basketball, it was like the sky was falling. Well, the sky fell when SIU-Carbondale got a recruit that wanted to go to SLU but SLU did not offer him a scholarship. Multiple respected posters were stunned. During discussion of this, a debate between a reporter (who posts) and billiken_roy (the most active poster in Billikens.com history) got into an argument. Roy eventually got fed up with the board and put himself on a self-imposed hiatus. He said he wouldn’t come back until it was assured that there was little to no anonymity on the board. Him and I exchanged some e-mails about this, but it eventually came to us disagreeing.

    Also during this time, I learned that SLU tried to contact me last September, but they were using an e-mail address that I haven’t actively used since High School. I e-mailed them immediately apologizing for not replying to them, and they understood the situation. Things there seem to be smoothed over now. (Also this week, someone posted something that happened on a SLU road trip and at a team practice….I highly suspect the source somehow came from a player…which I am sure put a great big smile on SLU’s face)

    With Roy’s leaving and numerous complaints about the board, I have upped moderation. I finally banned the few trolls we had (I hate banning people, but it had to be done. I am too lax about it). Both trolls are sort of realizing they are banned. One is asking me questions about it, and another is trying to be an internet bad guy and is attempting to register a bunch of accounts so he can troll again. He isn’t the brightest sort; so far his attempts have been unsuccessful. I can up security one more notch, but that would be a nuissance for me a little. So I am going to see if he can figure out a way around the current settings first.

    I have lost some longtime posters it seems. The site’s traffic has not taken a significant hit though. Over 50 people logged in to check the message board this Sunday morning. During this past week, I got a couple thousand vistors a day amounting to about 25,000 daily page views, so business isn’t bad.

    I will admit that I should have been stricter earlier. However, whenever I was strict before I had to justify my actions twenty times over making sure everyone was happy. It is a lot easier to identify a pest, and kill it (or IP Ban it). Since the bans and Roy’s departure, the discussion has been more civilized on Billikens.com, but it has only been a few days. If things keep like the way they are, I will claim success. However, until then, I got to watch this damn message board like a hawk.

    I have owned and operated Billikens.com for almost a decade now. It is a hobby. It gives me a reason to remain technically oriented. Last year was the first time I seriously considered giving it up. I have thought about it more in the past month, but I could not really imagine not owning and operating a web site about Saint Louis University Basketball. I just wonder how long I will keep it up.

  • The Lounge

    If anyone ever wants to spoil a surprise from Steve. They simply need to check the Lounge. So don’t go to the Lounge if you want to be surprised.

  • Not going two months

    Okay. I let December completely slip by, but I am not going to let January too. I have actually written posts for this, but I never put them online because they were a little too at the moment…typically me pissed about something but usually I did not want one person or another to read.

    For a brief update, my life is pretty much continuing as it did last semester. However, now I am taking 3 graduate classes instead of one. I need to work on my scheduling a little better, but I am acclimating to the reading a pile of journal articles every week. I am back at the DLCC. I am unofficially staff. Some inside baseball needs to be batted around before it is officially announced. In my head, I am making a tally of which I like better: Graduate School or Professional Politics. Right now one is winning pretty handedly, but I won’t say which because it could be a tempormental thing (Doesn’t that make for great reading readers).

    One thing that I have grown to realize more and more is that I do not enjoy doing the same thing for very long. I love starting things, but I sometimes dread tying up the loose ends. This is an extraordinarily bad trait to have. I usually start things and set high expectations, then I try to fulfill those when my desire is actually to start some other project. There have been many times when I simply have needed to tell myself: Your plate is full, finish what is on it before you take more. I get bored. It is pretty much that. Then in my rush to move onto the the next thing, I don’t necessarily finish the first thing with enough quality.
    So, for now, I am going to post a short list of things that people really do not appreciate enough in their everyday lives.

    Currency – Do people realize how long this took to get together in a stable fashion (well, Brett does)? I verbally expressed this notion in a very dorky way, when I was visiting my girlfriend. I was buying something in Austin, Texas, and I simply stated that it was fantastic that my dollars worked in Austin. I was simply marveled that the money I earn in Washington, DC was accepted at some restaurant in Austin, TX over 1500 miles away.

    Tables – How many tables or steady flat surfaces do you interact with in a day? Right now, let’s go through mine. My desk at home, a table in the history department, another in the political science department, where I ate lunch, my desk at work, the conference room at work, the library, and my roommates desk. This is not even counting the countertops I encountered. Now, these have been around for a while…a long while. However, look at the quality of the tables. Nearly all are flat enough to write on without the grain of the wood making your pen go awry. Nowadays we simple expect our tables to be flat and level, anything less is considered garbage.

    Medicine – Drugs are simply great. And I am not talking about the ones that keep rare diseases in check. I am talking about good ‘ol over the counter stuff. This weekend, I had a sling hangover. Took a couple Ibuprofen, and it was gone without me even noticing. If I get sick, I just load up on Sudafed, Tylenol, etc. I don’t feel great, but it kills the cold. I have also had some good recent interactions with Band-Aids. They have performed their function admirably and without fault.

    k. Hopefully next post won’t take 2+ Months.

  • Calhoun

    It is Election Day, and I should be sleeping, but I am taking a break from revising a paper to deliver these thoughts.

    Every once and a while, my political philosophical mind gets going, and I just start hammering on an issue. Before I begin expressing my thoughts, let me say this.

    If I were to give my unrestricted and just raw view of abortion, I would see it as an acceptable form of birth control. However, this is before I place any real thought into it.

    For a long time, I said I was Pro-Choice, which I still am. However, after considering inconsistencies amongst my views this has somewhat changed me. For example, I am personally opposed to the idea of a parent picking the gender or eye color of their child. It just doesn’t rub me the right way. Just let nature take its course. However, if I don’t think a mother should be able to determine their child’s eye color; how do I allow for her to decide whether or not the child lives. (On an aside of this issue, if I am going to be a stickler for consistency, should I allow a woman to treat herself to better her child’s health? Ignore this, but I just wanted to note it)

    Therefore, I take the position that if I were a woman, I would not have an abortion, but it is not to my choosing for anyone else. Leaving me Pro-Choice.

    When reading the words of Southerners such as John Calhoun, there are many statements like the following.

    The Federal Government has no right to infringe upon the liberties of the states.

    Now, this was a defense of the states rights to choose whether or not they would allow the institution of slavery (upon my reading, I am learning Calhoun was quite the political mastermind, but another story again). Now, if you were to ask someone: Does the Federal Government have the right to infringe upon the liberties of the states to allow slavery? I am very confident in saying that the answer would be a resounding YES.

    Now let’s phrase Calhoun’s statement again, for something more modern.

    The Federal Government has no right to infringe upon the liberties of the individual.

    (I admit, these are blanket statements, and the Federal Government does have some rights) However, lets phrase it one more time.

    The Federal Government has no right to infringe upon the liberties of a woman regarding her personal health decisions.

    The two units we are examining are States and a Women’s liberty. For states, the issue was slavery. For women, the issue is abortion. Now, I am absolutely not trying to equate the two. However, I am trying to consider the contexts of the Abolition Abortion debates.

    Slavery was an institution that people accepted. In the 19th Century, many people simply took the attitude: “It is an unfortunate institution, we should try to minimize it, but we simply cannot eliminate it.” This is not verbatim abortion lines, but it rings very similar, to me at least.

    If I consider abortion to be a moral wrong, as I do slavery, should I then think my government should outlaw it? I simply hate the idea of the government legislating morality. I hate it with a fiery passion. However, if I were to write things in the defense of abortion and a woman’s right to choose now, would my words be interpreted as those of John Calhoun? Instead of being a racist bigot, I would simply be an advocate of the murder of innocents?

    The battle over slavery and the civil war for many was the Federal Government influencing other institutions’ rights. However, isn’t that simply what the abortion debate is?

    I am not trying to equate slavery to abortion, but I am simply thinking of them in similar contexts and the debates surrounding the issues. Simply because when I am thinking of it, the Pro-Choicers seem to be Confederates.

    I wrote this and only read through it once, and I plan to make revisions on it. Please be patient before you denounce me as a Pro-Life Zealot. I am just proposing something for consideration. My libertarian beliefs still hold truest.